search-assets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool searches assets. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it checks eligibility, whether it consumes rate limits, or what happens if no assets match. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that appears to be a read/lookup operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded clause with no wasted words; it names the action, scope, and asset categories compactly. It could include more behavioral detail, but as a pure conciseness matter it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out important contextual details: what a result looks like, what sources are searched, and whether authorization or rate-limit checks apply. The description is adequate for locating the tool but not for confidently understanding its full behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the keyword parameter and notes fuzzy matching. The description adds context by defining the asset types searched, but it does not add new meaning about how the keyword is matched or interpreted beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('search') and a resource category ('testable assets, i.e. domains/IPs/APPs'), which makes the tool's purpose understandable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sync-src-assets or enumerate-subdomains. It could be clearer about whether 'testable' means 'in-scope' or 'verified available', but the core purpose is not ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is the entry point for asset discovery, nor does it exclude cases such as 'use sync-src-assets to import assets first.' The usage context is only implied by the word 'search.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.